Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[Col. Hstar]

Are there any other readers with enough background in this to contribute? I'm fairly certain I'm not getting through to you, Homestar, and I know you're not getting through to me because I read you as claiming the universe violates the Second Law. I'd really appreciate a fresh, informed perspective on this.

To be clear, I am not saying it does violates the2nd Law. I'm saying your idea of no creator or God implies that it violates the 2nd Law
I'm saying that to maintain order requires precise directed energy. Believing in God, I feel that he provides the energy to maintain the order in the galaxy. I am asking, that if someone refuses to believe in God, how do you think that the order is maintained? You believe everything came about by chance. If you believe that nothing is maintaining the universe but mindless molecules, then you must believe the universe is defying the 2nd Law

Yes I know I've been posting more still even though I said I wouldn't. Another sleepless night

[Shalandai]

Are there any other readers with enough background in this to contribute? I'm fairly certain I'm not getting through to you, Homestar, and I know you're not getting through to me because I read you as claiming the universe violates the Second Law. I'd really appreciate a fresh, informed perspective on this.

Oh. Hello. There's a lot going on in here.

As I have barely read anything in this thread I have a very fuzzy understanding for the basis of this discussion; a theological discourse on the existence of a higher party as proven by... laws of thermodynamics? Either I'll need some time to catch up or someone will have to bring me up to speed so I don't inadvertently retread.

[Darth Crater]

All the relevant posts should be in the last 2-3 pages. I'm specifically looking to find out if I've gotten anything wrong or misrepresented anything, and to make sure Homestar and I have sorted out what the other is actually talking about.

[Shalandai]

Ok. I think I see where the communication broke down. To ensure I am on the same page:

Col Homestar has stated that the universe as realized in scientific theory is in defiance of our own Second Law of Thermodynamics, therefore proving the idea of 'maintenance' as provided by a higher power.

Darth Crater is... a little harder to follow. While I do not think you misinterpreted his original statement, you focused on a rather weak area of contention for the debate and continued to follow a separate line of logic. Which resulted in presented arguments that were not entirely connected with each other; or, more appropriately, were not furthering the debate, but indulging in semantics that were unnecessary at this current point in time.

I know you're not getting through to me because I read you as claiming the universe violates the Second Law.

I do not feel that he answered this adequately, as I am in agreement here. His basis is that the universe is in theoretical violation, and that it is only prevented from properly obeying by intervention / observation. This is the argument he has made, which obviously is resulting in confusion when he posts that this is not what he is saying. The only logical assumption to draw from this is that he is not clearly presenting whatever his intended point may be.

In the universe the law applies as well, so if your position is that these forces all came into order by pure chance, why then are they not following the laws of physics? The only answer to this is that the universe as a whole is a highly organized state that came from a highly organized source. Chaos cannot produce and maintain order

The law does apply to the universe, very notable physicists and scientists agree with this, so please answer the question. Why does the cosmic forces in our universe defy this law of physics? I stated my reason, that a creator has designed it that way.

Here is the point that Darth Crater missed, and should have focused on; there is a glaring presumptive statement made here for which I see no presented evidence. What proof has been made that the universe is in violation at all? Where has it proven that we are not in a state of decay? I will follow with adequate sources (or retract this as necessary) in the morning, as I should like to go to bed soon, but I recall from memory that it has been proven the sun will eventually die out, and that in the current rate of galactic expansion, our universe will become so separated as too be incapable of function. Both of these should be logical examples that the universe is in fact in accordance with the Second Law, and not in violation.

Obviously I am aware of the logical fallacies of the second statement but I believe this is the more appropriate point of contention for this debate, rather than the dialectic semantics of chaos within the wording of the Second Law. We just got a little off track, is all.

[Col. Hstar]

Yes I agree those two statement do not clearly reflect my position. After having to state it countless different ways it's bound to look confusing. I do believe though that my last post did say my position best.

To be clear, I am not saying it does violates the2nd Law. I'm saying your idea of no creator or God implies that it violates the 2nd Law
I'm saying that to maintain order requires precise directed energy. Believing in God, I feel that he provides the energy to maintain the order in the galaxy. I am asking, that if someone refuses to believe in God, how do you think that the order is maintained? You believe everything came about by chance. If you believe that nothing is maintaining the universe but mindless molecules, then you must believe the universe is defying the 2nd Law.

My position is that the universe is NOT in defiance of the 2nd law. My position is that IF what the evolutionary process says were to be true, THEN that belief would imply violation of the law.

[Yanoda]

I'm still waiting for an explanation why my water analogy does not apply to your watchmaker analogy.

Your statement:
Watch is designed by a designer. (Like my art)
The world we live in looks designed.
Therefore, the world we live in has a designer.

My comparison:
Water is a clear liquid.
All four cups have a clear liquid.
Therefore, all four cups must be water.

So please tell me (and explain in detail) why the water comparison is false. Both use the same layout of the argument by comparing objects or ideas with similar characteristics. The differences of each of the comparisons were ignored by you (I have listed the differences that make the comparisons inaccurate in previous posts in both cases).

I'm sorry to say that your understanding of Entropy and the meaning of disorder is incorrect.
It is true that by definition, Entropy prefers disorder, but it does so to achieve equilibrium.
Also, by stating that God(s) provide energy to the Universe would violate both the first and second law of thermodynamics.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted. Applying God(s) that add energy to the Universe violates that law.
The overall Entropy of the Universe is ~0, the Universe can never reach lower Entropy. By stating that God(s) create order in the Universe does not coincide with the law. One area may achieve lower Entropy but another area has to gain Entropy to cancel it out. Where life achieves lower entropy, the surroundings gain in entropy.

This is a very simple explanation, so I provide this video for your enjoyment and understanding of the actual meaning of Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It goes into a lot of detail and equations (over 1 hour video) but don't let that deter you.


Cheers

Yanoda

[Col. Hstar]

Your water analogy is useless because it's an observation without facts. In the first picture you cover the names of the liquids. That's like make an observation with your eyes closed. I have presented evidence of how the universe works according to noted physicists I'm not hiding my eyes from the data and making an observation. I am using that data as a base for my observation.

Now I ask again and please stop side stepping the question. According to your belief that everything came about by chance, how do you reconcile the 2nd law with your theory. If the law says that the natural tendency is for elements to equilibriate why haven't they?

I really want you to give an answer for that. Don't be condescending and post a stupid 1 hour video that no one is going to watch. Answer the question. If you base everything on factual evidence, you should have evidence pointing to how it's possible that your theory works along the lines of the 2nd law.

[Darth Crater]

Thanks for the help, Shalandai.

Yes I agree those two statement do not clearly reflect my position. After having to state it countless different ways it's bound to look confusing. I do believe though that my last post did say my position best.

My position is that the universe is NOT in defiance of the 2nd law. My position is that IF what the evolutionary process says were to be true, THEN that belief would imply violation of the law.

In what way do you believe that (natural selection, or abiogenesis? You were one of the ones asking people to specify earlier!) contradicts the Second Law? Neither of those results in a decrease of entropy in a closed system. Note that individual animals, ecosystems, and even the entire Earth are not closed systems - sunlight is absorbed, and heat is radiated.

About the water analogy - his point is that you are making leaps beyond the actual evidence you have - you know "liquid is clear" or "universe has order", and from that alone are making the leap to "liquid is water" or "universe is designed". This despite the fact that the order of the universe is a natural result of the basic forces of the universe, applied to its initial condition, with no evidence of interference.

[Col. Hstar]

Why are you both refusing to answer the question? I'd be more then happy to move onto a new subject as soon as you answer my question. Reconcile the 2nd law with your theory of how the universe sustains life.

[Yanoda]

I really want you to give an answer for that. Don't be condescending and post a stupid 1 hour video that no one is going to watch. Answer the question. If you base everything on factual evidence, you should have evidence pointing to how it's possible that your theory works along the lines of the 2nd law.

The video exactly explains the processes of Entropy, how it functions and how it works. It is unfortunate that you refuse to watch it since it clearly explains it. Please refrain from making baseless claims like me being condescending. I'm trying to help in understanding the concept of Entropy and its functions, you refuse...

Now I ask again and please stop side stepping the question. According to your belief that everything came about by chance, how do you reconcile the 2nd law with your theory. If the law says that the natural tendency is for elements to equilibriate why haven't they?

You have yet to answer other questions as well, so don't accuse me of side stepping.
They (the elements) are. Like in a balloon, you have a higher density of gases than the outside. The membrane of the balloon keeps it together and the gasses inside. Poop the balloon, the gases want to spread out (gain entropy) to achieve the same density of the environment. The same principal is explained in much more detail in the Video. Heat usually always travels toward colder areas to achieve equilibrium in temperature. Entropy functions in the atomic level (particles). I recommend watching it.

Maybe someone else can watch the video (since Homestar refuses to) to give some feedback on the subject and the video itself.

Cheers

Yanoda